I’m not a fan of colloquial, paraphrastic translations of the Bible (or of anything else for that matter); I generally stick with the Authorized Version, and when I use other translations as a supplement I choose the most strictly literal ones I can find. However, my wife having recently become interested in the Bible, but finding the archaic language of the Chinese Union Version and the King James to be rough going, I now have in my home something called the Good News Bible.

I’ve perused a few parts of it, and the very colloquial language (“Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?” becomes “Who hit you? Guess!”) turns out to be surprisingly useful at times, casting familiar passages in a very unfamiliar way and forcing me to notice what they actually mean. In an essay my brother Luther wrote a few years back (a good essay, by the way; read it), he mentions that

the grave danger of the scriptures is that they are church-talk, and we are so used to church-talk we can hear, understand, and discuss it without ever letting it penetrate beyond the churchy part of ourselves.

Luther goes on to say that we are so used to the word “eternity” that it means nothing to us, and that it can be helpful to mentally replace it with “85,000 years” (“for some reason, eighty-five thousand years seems a lot longer than eternity to me”). He’s right; it is helpful — and the same applies to any number of other overfamiliar “churchy” expressions. The Good News Bible (and other simplified translations) may avoid such expressions because they are unfamiliar to its intended readers, but in so doing it also provides a valuable service for readers with the opposite problem — those for whom such expressions are so familiar as to have lost all meaning.

Here’s how the Good News Bible renders Genesis 4:13-15.

And Cain said to the LORD, “This punishment is too hard for me to bear. You are driving me off the land and away from your presence. I will be a homeless wanderer on the earth, and anyone who finds me will kill me”

But the LORD answered, “No. If anyone kills you, seven lives will be taken in revenge.” So the LORD put a mark on Cain to warn anyone who met him not to kill him.

I don’t know how many times I’ve read the KJV rendition of this — “Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold” — without the meaning of those words ever really sinking in. The GNB spells it out in a way which comes as a shock but which is surely correct. To avenge a murder is to kill the murderer, and you can’t kill the same person seven times, so to avenge a murder sevenfold can only mean to kill seven people — including, presumably, six who are not guilty of the murder of the person supposedly being avenged.

It’s hard to see any justice in this, especially given that Abel, despite his blood crying from the ground, is not avenged at all. In fact, the whole point of the promise to avenge Cain seems to be to deter anyone from trying to avenge Abel! Why would Cain’s murderer be punished so much more severely than Abel’s? Perhaps it could be argued that Cain was not truly guilty of murder; since no one had ever died before, he could not have known the full meaning of his act — whereas anyone who might try to kill Cain in order to avenge Abel’s murder must eo ipso understand what it means to kill a man. But could Cain really have been ignorant of what killing meant? After all, he had seen Abel slaughter sacrificial animals before. And even if we assume that Cain’s murderer would deserve death in a way that Cain himself did not, what about the other six victims of the sevenfold vengeance? Why would they deserve any punishment? (And who would they be? As far as we know, the world population hasn’t even reached seven yet at this point.)

Another possible interpretation hinges on a different reading of “shall.” When the Lord says “shall,” we are used to understanding it as a commandment — but perhaps here the Lord is only making a prediction and giving a warning. Rather than ordering that Cain be avenged, or saying that he ought to be avenged, perhaps he is just warning that he will in fact be avenged if anyone kills him. If you kill Cain for killing Abel, someone will kill you for killing Cain, and then someone will kill that guy for killing you, and so on without end. “Sevenfold” could just mean “many times over.” Maybe Yahweh, still a young idealistic God at this point, is warning humanity that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. He may later have regretted this policy of allowing murder to go essentially unpunished, since before long “the earth was filled with violence” and he had to wipe everyone out and start over again. And one of the first things he did after the Flood was to introduce a new rule: “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.”

5 responses to “Sevenfold vengeance”

I haven’t read any commentary on this, but I’ll tell you how it struck me: that God’s punishment to Cain was that Cain must live with his guilt, that nobody should ‘put him out of his misery’ by killing him; that Cain would suffer so much remorse that he would want to die, but would not be allowed to die.

I’m certainly not saying that the above is the correct interpretation, but simply that was what I thought it meant, something along those lines anyway.

*

Concerning Bible translations, I got into quite a tangle about this at one time. I was given the New Revised Standard Version, which I later discovered had been made politically correct, with Bowdlerized passages and ‘gender inclusive’ langauge – so obviously I had to set that aside!

The New International Version (used at a couple of churches I attend) is apparently a sentence by sentence translation, the New English Bible a word by word translation, then there are simplified ones like Good New, and paraphrases…

But none of these rise above the virtue of clarity – none are beautiful – and this is seem especially in the psalms. I’ms sorry to be hardline, but I think it is ‘inexcusable’ to use modern, meaning-based, translations of the psalms – and the psalms have traditionally been the focus of Christian worship.

English has two inspired renderings of the psalms – the King James (much my own favourite) and Miles Coverdale – which is the Book of Common Prayer. No others should ever be used, except to explain or as a commentary.

But which Bible translations as a whole are divinely inspired? Well not so many – the King James, obviously; and presumably the Vulgate Latin, the Greek Septuagint.. maybe others. But for an English speaker it should be the King James as primary and the others read as a commentary, gloss or paraphrase.

Because unless scripture is divinely inspired what you have is not scripture, but a book *about* scripture – maybe useful, maybe grossly distorted, but anyway not the same thing at all.

*

Of course, one attitude is that the message will get through somehow, and in an ultimate sense this is probably true (if a person is sufficiently advanced in holiness) – but that attitude is not compatible with the endless proliferation of Biblical scholarships and more and more ‘improved’ translations.

Either the specific version of scripture is important and we should try to use the most inspired, or it is not important and we should be utterly indifferent to the matter, and to scholarship – but I can’t see where you could draw a line with this latter attitude.

Well, if you believe in an afterlife, then killing someone whose torment is moral rather than physical in nature wouldn’t “put him out of his misery” at all; quite the contrary. I’ve heard that interpretation of Cain’s punishment before, though. It’s a common folk belief among Mormons (not an official doctrine) that Cain’s punishment was that he could never die, and that he still walks the earth today.

*

As a former Mormon, I am of course familiar with the idea of an inspired translation, but what is your reason for thinking the King James qualifies? The Vulgate was translated by a saint; the King James, by a committee.

“The Vulgate was translated by a saint; the King James, by a committee.”

I find this a powerful proof. Nothing else so good (or any good at all) ever came from a committee except this; committees simply *cannot do* this kind of thing.

Indeed, a committee would certainly have wrecked what materials they had (eg Tynedale’s previous work, Coverdale’s work); just as the 20th century Church of England committees inexorably, step by step, wrecked the Authorized version and the Book of Common Prayer into the present horrors.

Ordinarily i worry & worry over your grinding away at all these idiotic passages from The Bible, that contains, by my reasoning; Very little wisdom or moral guidance—
But this is a very curious story, and i very much like your interpretation of Seven Fold to mean That An Eye of An Eye will Blind The World. ( M.K. Gandhi )
i have never heard that expression before, or if i did, it didn’t sink in.
As for The Good News Bible, that was Standard issue in The Lutheran Church that i Attended as a Child. ( But i still neglected it )